Why are swords "better" than guns?

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by analogZero

not a man of honor, huh?

anyhow, here's something I found on death rates. the top ranking is for suicides, proving yet again how much more efficient guns really are.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm

here's something a little more recent published by the new york times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...H_GRAPHIC.html

and here's the address mentioned in the article. you can go through and find death rates for all kinds of things too. 2 795 killed by blades in 2005 in the US. how about that.

http://cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

You're the first to even post sources. Anyway it's not the guns fault. If guns did not exist the criminals would kill people with something else so the people are to blame. Guns as with any other weapon have no say who lives or dies. If you ban guns that will only make law abiding citizens more vulnerable. Think about it. If you were going to commit a crime with a gun would you want to acquire it the legal way or the quick and easy illegal way?

I am somewhat of a man of honor, but just in a different way. I don't see honor in killing. Many aspects of life can be honorable, but not ending someone elses.

Originally Posted by Russkie

Can you kill your target 2 miles away with a "blade"?

No... but a gun can (i.e. .50 Caliber riffle).

I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm


The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.


The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm


The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.


The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

Oooh! Shiny! I like it...

My apologies, I was missinformed.

[SteyrAUG]

If I came across as rude I apologize. Anyway the Barret .50 cal rifle is quite commonly misunderstood. I only found out about this stuff a few weeks ago when I was watching a sniper competition on the military channel. The 20mm rifle is pretty badass. I think it costs up to $11,000 for it.

[a2ng0d]

for the guy that said "you can't kill up close and personal with a gun"; did you read my post on the pistol execution? read before you post.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

You're the first to even post sources. Anyway it's not the guns fault. If guns did not exist the criminals would kill people with something else so the people are to blame. Guns as with any other weapon have no say who lives or dies. If you ban guns that will only make law abiding citizens more vulnerable. Think about it. If you were going to commit a crime with a gun would you want to acquire it the legal way or the quick and easy illegal way?

I am somewhat of a man of honor, but just in a different way. I don't see honor in killing. Many aspects of life can be honorable, but not ending someone elses.


I must call bullshit on this. First off it is a very common misconception that the .50 caliber rifle is anti personal, but in reality it is used as anti matter. It's meant to do stuff like penetrating a trucks engine block stopping it rather than killing a general a mile away. For a .50 rifle much further than 1 1/2 miles accuracy is random at best. There is a rifle though that has a range of close to 3 miles. It fires the same 20mm bullets used in an airplanes nose gattling gun. It's not used by the military though since it is way too big and not practical.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm


The blue bullet is a 20mm and the one right next to it is a .50 cal.


The small rifle is the .50 cal and the big one is the 20mm.

well in a way, yes it is partly the gun's fault. The statistics are there and gun's are the death tool of choice. They're top ranked. Just because people have the urge to kill doesn't necessarily mean they can achieve it. In Law, you can't be convicted without motive and means. motivation is what drives people to kill in 90 some percent of all cases (the other slight percentage is doled out to crazy's and the like who kill randomly, and there's not too many of them), but they need a means by which to do so. Making your kill easier means there's a greater likelihood that they'll die. That's simple. People know to play the percentages, and when it's clear that it's easier and more efficient to use a gun they're going to do it. But yes, I believe statistics are in ill favour when it comes to legal vs illegal weapons. why wait and pay more when you can get your gun now for a low price.

[R+V Freak]

why you dont just play devil may cry theres boths swords and guns
and bloodly hells YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!XD

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by analogZero

well in a way, yes it is partly the gun's fault. The statistics are there and gun's are the death tool of choice. They're top ranked. Just because people have the urge to kill doesn't necessarily mean they can achieve it. In Law, you can't be convicted without motive and means. motivation is what drives people to kill in 90 some percent of all cases (the other slight percentage is doled out to crazy's and the like who kill randomly, and there's not too many of them), but they need a means by which to do so. Making your kill easier means there's a greater likelihood that they'll die. That's simple. People know to play the percentages, and when it's clear that it's easier and more efficient to use a gun they're going to do it. But yes, I believe statistics are in ill favour when it comes to legal vs illegal weapons. why wait and pay more when you can get your gun now for a low price.

The gun should not be blamed since it can not choose who lives or dies. If guns did not exist people would simply choose the easiest weapon they could find.

Originally Posted by arcose

a gun is not alwase the best in all instensis a good yes they are good for killing u shot dead right but they are loud and even with supreser they still make to much nouse so thats y u might need a sword or knif or dagger or something like that so u can slit peoples throuts see ther are time when u need one more then the other

Despite the terrible grammar I agree with you. I believe I made this statement in the 1st post which you should read before posting. ;-)

Originally Posted by R+V Freak

why you dont just play devil may cry theres boths swords and guns
and bloodly hells YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!XD

I prefer not to use video games to illustrate a point in how real life combat works.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

The gun should not be blamed since it can not choose who lives or dies. If guns did not exist people would simply choose the easiest weapon they could find.

but the easiest weapon is guns. you can't lump blame and responsibility into one big pile, it's distributed amongst all things involved. That's why there's statistics for how many people are killed by guns, how many are killed by knives, how many are killed by cars, how many are killed by explosives, etc. Taking guns out of the equation of 'somebody used a gun to kill someone' is quite ignorant. Death rates are not equivalent to people's desire to kill. That's why suicide bombers use bombs, to maximize damage. you can't say that the same results would come if they'd used a knife. Effective killing power is what piles on the numbers, not people's decision to kill. If it were the case you described, you could go into battle unarmed and achieve the same result as being fully equipped.

[contrast]

I told you I don't care, this may be a Debate Forum but what I said is Fact. The only actual option was that "I don't support the use violence". Regardless of what you did or will you state on me Holly-Sama, mostly everything you've said about the Facts I have clearly stated- are Opinions to you and not Facts. Your gonna confuse someone because realized or not I think you may confused on the fine line of Fact and Opinion. My advice (which yes is an opinion this time around) get Wikipedia.org and a Webster's Dictionary. Then check your facts- weigh on weather you want opionated statements or the Cold Stone Hard Facts. Go ahead and feel free to agree to disagree with me. Like I said I just don't care anymore, thats the end of my post here, unless you have something else that's stupid or pointless to me. Heck I'll even make a thread for you on anything I see fit, which you can argue pointlessly all you want against me in.

[atomsk]

i am the god of all bullets
1.no it is not easy to shoot long didtance and takes some skill short distance.
2. i bet my .44 magnum will beat your sword
3. guns are just better